|
That's the crux of the matter. PP courts struck down a statute of autonomy, or most of it, that had been duly approved in [Spanish] parliament. One of the main reasons so many Catalans want independence is because they rightly fear that the central government could revert their autonomy at a whim, or arbitrarily cancel measures taken by the Catalan government. We're seeing that now as well, there's been talk of suspending Catalan autonomy in order to 'punish' them, as if that is fully within their power to do. If Madrid had taken federalism seriously instead of framing it as a favor to be given and taken away, we never would have reached this point.
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 01:12 |
|
Phlegmish posted:That's the crux of the matter. PP courts struck down a statute of autonomy, or most of it, that had been duly approved in [Spanish] parliament. One of the main reasons so many Catalans want independence is because they rightly fear that the central government could revert their autonomy at a whim, or arbitrarily cancel measures taken by the Catalan government. We're seeing that now as well, there's been talk of suspending Catalan autonomy in order to 'punish' them, as if that is fully within their power to do. If Madrid had taken federalism seriously instead of framing it as a favor to be given and taken away, we never would have reached this point. There is no "PP court", they are Spanish courts. You sound a lot like Trump accusing judges striking down his laws.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
To be clear, it was the Constitutional Court that struck it down, and we had a PSOE government at the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:That's the crux of the matter. PP courts struck down a statute of autonomy, or most of it, that had been duly approved in [Spanish] parliament. One of the main reasons so many Catalans want independence is because they rightly fear that the central government could revert their autonomy at a whim, or arbitrarily cancel measures taken by the Catalan government. We're seeing that now as well, there's been talk of suspending Catalan autonomy in order to 'punish' them, as if that is fully within their power to do. If Madrid had taken federalism seriously instead of framing it as a favor to be given and taken away, we never would have reached this point. Only 14 articles out of 223 were declared unconstitucional (PP appealed against 114), in my opinion, of those 14, only 4 have a significant political content. Amusingly enough, nobody at the time talked about independence as an answer (unilateral or not), even ERC literally said that in case PP's appeal was approved by the court, the statute would be even less suitable for the needs of Catalonia and that a different Constitutional framework would be necessary to respect the rights of Catalonia. Anyway, any of this matters right now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
Angry Lobster posted:Only 14 articles out of 223 were declared unconstitucional (PP appealed against 114), in my opinion, of those 14, only 4 have a significant political content. Amusingly enough, nobody at the time talked about independence as an answer (unilateral or not), even ERC literally said that in case PP's appeal was approved by the court, the statute would be even less suitable for the needs of Catalonia and that a different Constitutional framework would be necessary to respect the rights of Catalonia. Anyway, any of this matters right now. I assume you mean 'none', but since it is the direct cause of the current crisis, it seems to me that it matters a lot. They hosed up so bad that even the PSC-PSOE supported calls to defend the statute from judicial tampering by attempting to reform the Constitutional Court. It is the futility of those attempts that led to the call for independence. e: you are right though that only some of the articles were declared unconstitutional, not most.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Elman posted:To be clear, it was the Constitutional Court that struck it down, and we had a PSOE government at the time. The PP were the ones who took it to court though. Also iirc half the TSJ justices chosen by the government and by the senate, which has been gerrymandered to gently caress by the PP over the years. There's a reason a comfortable 7/12 current justices are affiliated to the conservatives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
Altivia posted:Also iirc half the TSJ justices chosen by the government and by the senate So 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
I lost a bet with a co-worker and now have to read Varoufakis' Adults in the Room - My Battle With Europes Deep Establishment. I'm kinda considering blinding myself with a soldering iron.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
On his literary journey, Gauss approached the end the book. Suddenly a red light flashed all around him. He fell out of his chair. He heard a voice speak to him. Gauss! Gauss! the voice said. Why are you opposing me? Who are you, my Führer? Gauss asked. I am Marx, He replied. I am the one you are opposing. Now get up and go unto the forums. There you will be told what you must do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Fat Samurai posted:So My point is that the Spanish supreme court is almost laughably deep in the pocket of the PP so it should surprise exactly nobody they're at the PP's beck and call, but feel free to ignore that in favour of talking about something that doesn't exist
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Altivia posted:My point is that the Spanish supreme court is almost laughably deep in the pocket of the PP so it should surprise exactly nobody they're at the PP's beck and call, but feel free to ignore that in favour of talking about something that doesn't exist You keep saying that the judges being in the pocket of the government is a problem, asking what's the plan to fix it seems a fair question. So far the only answer the Generalitat has given is "the judges are, by law, at the beck and call of the Generalitat", so it hardly seems an improvement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Fat Samurai posted:You keep saying that the judges being in the pocket of the government is a problem, asking what's the plan to fix it seems a fair question. Hm. Didn't get that question from the subtext of your post but yeah ok. In answer, preventing justices from being openly listed as "conservative/progressive" would be a solid start. As supposedly neutral arbiters of the law there's literally no reason for them to have any political affiliation whatsoever. "Less gerrymandering" would also be a good step forward, but that's obvious. Though to be frank getting any supreme court to be truly neutral is basically impossible (I mean, just look at the US) so I'll just limit myself to pointing out that pretending this one is is extra ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
The judges of the supreme court are politically appointed, they're not actually supposed to be neutral because if so they wouldn't be politically appointed in the first place. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 07:44
|
|
|
Every bit helps. Appointments will always be subject to politics, but broad consensus that principle and competence should matter more than ideological bona fides is possible. And a court viewed as a tool of a political party is already failing to be seen as a place of justice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 08:43
|
|
|
Altivia posted:Hm. Didn't get that question from the subtext of your post but yeah ok. Everyone I've spoken to who agrees with independence falls either in the "I don't know the details and believe that everything will magically turn out right somehow" or in the "I don't care about it as long as I believe it benefits me". I suppose there is a third camp of "I know this is bullshit, but it's better than the other side bullshit", but in my experience is pretty small. For example, I've heard the referendum defended because it was about "democracy" instead of "independence", when the last time we had a vote that had so few democratic guarantees Franco was still kicking. For example: when asked about whether they would be alright with Spain allowing the referendum as it was planned, but also supervising the vote count everyone was horrified at the prospect (and before someone says it, yeah, Rajoy would cheat), but apparently when "their" side did it it was perfectly fine. Here's the subtext of my question: You have erroneously called me twice on spreading false information and other posters at least once, so I'm wondering whether you're uninformed or malicious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 09:25
|
|
|
Yes, clearly the millions of Catalans that have taken to the streets since 2010 are selfish idiots with the worst possible motivations. Only my own side is rational. Only I know the truth. If the referendum was lacking in 'democratic guarantees' that was almost 100% the fault of Madrid who did everything they could to bring about that state of affairs. Maybe you should have asked another question, whether they would have been fine with a referendum organized and supervised by a completely neutral third party. Let us compare answers on that one and see who is the more democratic. Despite all the hand-wringing about Catalans not knowing what is good for them and the irregularities of the referendum as it happened, that is still what it's about, Madrid refusing to allow any sort of referendum that would let Catalonia choose its own fate. Which in itself I don't think is that abnormal - who knows, if I were Spanish maybe I would be there in Madrid waving the Spanish flag, listening to people sing Cara al Sol. If you are Spanish, I can understand the nationalism. But for an outsider to support that would to be to side with authoritarianism, repression and state nationalism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 11:22
|
|
|
Zeppelin Insanity posted:Much as I think chances of independence ending well are slim, I cannot help but think it essentially hypocritical for many (not all!) people to use the "it's illegal" argument. Yes, of course. Counties can become countries through force. They can have wars and do whatever they want. People bring up legality because Catalans claim that they are becoming an independent country in a peaceful, legal, non-traumatic way. Pointing out that it isn't actually legal (and therefore not really peaceful) is fair game. The 'it's not legal' argument isn't an argument against independence, it's an argument against the idea that anything is fine and good as long as you haven't punched someone. If people want to argue that the Spanish state is so bad that Catalonians *should* become independent by force or push the situation forward by blatantly breaking the law, they are free to argue that. For the most part, people don't seem to want to do that. People bring it up in the form of a rhetorical question, at most ('well what else were catalans supposed to do if the Spanish government didn't want to sit down?', etc.) but in general no one wants to actually state "yes, the Catalan government should break the law repeatedly in order to become independent because the Spanish's government behavior clearly merits it". Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 11:45 on Oct 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 11:40
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:Yes, clearly the millions of Catalans that have taken to the streets since 2010 are selfish idiots with the worst possible motivations. Only my own side is rational. Only I know the truth. Spanish people having bad opinions doesn't make Catalan's people's bad opinions retroactively good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 11:41
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:Yes, of course. Counties can become countries through force. They can have wars and do whatever they want. People bring up legality because Catalans claim that they are becoming an independent country in a peaceful, legal, non-traumatic way. Pointing out that it isn't actually legal (and therefore not really peaceful) is fair game. Pedro De Heredia posted:Spanish people having bad opinions doesn't make Catalan's people's bad opinions retroactively good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 11:45
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:You're just restating the claim that (pretty much) all Catalans have bad opinions. Did all British had bad opinions when they voted for brexit?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 12:07
|
|
|
Aviron posted:Did all British had bad opinions when they voted for brexit? The ones that voted Leave did.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 12:09
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:I lost a bet with a co-worker and now have to read Varoufakis' Adults in the Room - My Battle With Europe’s Deep Establishment. Please do
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 12:10
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:The ones that voted Leave did. It doesn't matter how good or bad their opinions were, we have to respect the result. The same goes for the Scottish 'No', which is a much more relevant comparison. Spain has been put to shame by the UK of all countries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 12:14
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:It doesn't matter how good or bad their opinions were, we have to respect the result. I disagree. I think referendums are terrible and Germany has the right idea in outlawing them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 12:19
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Please do Feel free to ask for help, also.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 12:24
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:Yes, clearly the millions of Catalans that have taken to the streets since 2010 are selfish idiots with the worst possible motivations. Only my own side is rational. Only I know the truth. Why should Catalan independence be decided through a referendum at all? As far as I can tell, Catalonia has a perfectly serviceable regional parliament. If that parliament is going beyond its powers to organise a referendum in the first place, it could just as well debate and vote on independence through the mechanism of representative democracy. Parties could run on a pro-independence platform and you could count what percentage of the electorate actually backed those parties. There could be an active and informed debate about the pros and cons of declaring independence. That way you could be sure that there was a plan and that people could be held to account if it turned out that, say, the attempt to railroad through the secession was a complete disaster. Oh right, that way you'd find no majority support for the hardline pro-independence position. So, much better to push through a law through that Parlament, in a single day with a single reading, with limited debate, without consultation with the Council on Statutory Guarantees, and with a simple rather than qualified majority, against the advice of your own legal service, to organise a referendum with no requirements for turnout or level of support for the declaration of independence, in clear violation of your institutional powers and the law of the land. That way, you can be sure only your supporters are going to turn up. Even better still when you can count on the PP government to react in the stupidest manner possible so you can then wave the bloody shirt, because all the people in the rest of Spain protesting the police violence, shouting ĄNo pasarán!, or those turning up in white yesterday calling for dialogue can be cheerfully ignored to better make your point. So you can discount too the fact that in 98% of polling places people could vote as normal, and you still couldn't get more than 43% of the electorate to turn up. Because you are speaking for "Catalonia", which is after all a single entity with a single will speaking with one voice, and everyone who doesn't agree with you is basically a fascist. Seriously, don't fool yourself into thinking that Catalan nationalists are really all that different from Spanish nationalists or have more respect for "democracy". Because democracy is about more than just the rule of majority voting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 12:37
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I disagree. I think referendums are terrible and Germany has the right idea in outlawing them. Pluskut Tukker posted:Why should Catalan independence be decided through a referendum at all? As far as I can tell, Catalonia has a perfectly serviceable regional parliament. If that parliament is going beyond its powers to organise a referendum in the first place, it could just as well debate and vote on independence through the mechanism of representative democracy. Parties could run on a pro-independence platform and you could count what percentage of the electorate actually backed those parties. There could be an active and informed debate about the pros and cons of declaring independence. That way you could be sure that there was a plan and that people could be held to account if it turned out that, say, the attempt to railroad through the secession was a complete disaster. Pissflaps was much more succinct.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 12:42
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:Pissflaps was much more succinct. Whatever, dude.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 12:59
|
|
|
You're right, that wasn't entirely fair on my part, as I suspect that your opposition to referendums is quite flexible. You may recall that the 2015 election was explicitly about independence, that it had been a hotly debated topic for years at that point, and that separatist parties won a clear majority of seats in parliament according to the mechanisms of representative democracy. They could have immediately declared independence based on that, and then the argument would have been that it was a top-down elitist decision taken without consulting the people, by parties that didn't even get a majority of the popular vote (which is suddenly very important). There is simply no way to win. Just as in the discussion about the illegality and irregularities of the referendum, there is always some sort of catch 22 that precludes self-determination no matter which course the Catalonian government takes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 13:28
|
|
|
The Spanish government should have organized its own referendum, asking whether Catalans wanted to remain in Spain, scheduling it for the same day as Puigdemont's.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:You're right, that wasn't entirely fair on my part, as I suspect that your opposition to referendums is quite flexible. You may recall that the 2015 election was explicitly about independence, and that separatist parties won a clear majority of seats in parliament according to the mechanisms of representative democracy. They could have immediately declared independence based on that, and then the argument would have been that it was a top-down elitist decision taken without consulting the people, by parties that didn't even get a majority of the popular vote (which is suddenly very important). No, I think all referendums are nonsense, and particularly about things like the separation of a region from a state or like the separation of a state from the world's most involved political and economic union. There are entirely too many questions which need to be answered to distill them into a simple yes/no question. I generally think any kind of constitutional change to a nation's laws should require far better than a 50%+1 majority of votes in a one-shot referendum or 50% +1 of the seats in an elected body (where in Catalonia, as you correctly allude to, the pro-independence has a majority, but one based on less than 50% of the popular vote) in a single election. So above all, democracies should defend minority rights, and one of the ways they do that is by requiring supermajorities for important decisions. But then my argument is that it is by no means clear there even is a majority for independence; a little less than 40% of the population turned up for the 2014 consultation, a little more than 40% this time. You can equally argue that the consistent participation of Catalans in Spain's democratic system shows that a very large share of them have already determined that being a part of Spain is eqally acceptable or even preferred by 'Catalonia'. And finally, if my reasoning is motivated by anything here, it's just that what I've seen of Catalan nationalism and nationalists has given me no confidence in it at all. It smacks to me of the same kind of ethnic nationalism coupled with a sense of victimhood that we've seen many times before. Their rhetoric may be all about noble principles of democracy and self-determination and the superior morality of the Catalan people, but their 15M protestors got beat up just as badly by the Mossos. So I don't trust them at all to be honest about anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 14:00
|
|
|
Fat Samurai posted:Here's the subtext of my question: You have erroneously called me twice on spreading false information and other posters at least once, so I'm wondering whether you're uninformed or malicious. Protip: calling you out when you were spreading misinformation by the Societat Civil Catalana re: "everyone can vote as many times as they want anywhere they like" wasn't erroneous. You also claimed every single person at the tables was a volunteer when all available information from the Generalitat and ANC stated that they were chosen at random, and if they refused (or had the notification seized) the replacements would be the first people to show up to vote... which is the law applicable to every election/referendum. I'm not looking to bicker - I apologized to Angry Lobster for the one snap judgement - but it's drat hard when you seem to be doing your best to either cherry-pick sources or outright invent stuff. Also, Phlegmish posted:If the referendum was lacking in 'democratic guarantees' that was almost 100% the fault of Madrid who did everything they could to bring about that state of affairs. I don't quite understand how you don't get this. e: also lol that even bussing in people from other parts of Spain they could only get 350k people in their pro-unity demonstration today. Silent majority indeed. Altivia fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Oct 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
Catalonia set the terms of the referendum and Spain has no responsibility to honor them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
Pluskut Tukker posted:No, I think all referendums are nonsense, and particularly about things like the separation of a region from a state So let me spin off of this; what is your opinion on the Schleswig plebiscites and the Saarland 1935 and 1955 referenda? Were they a case where the populations should've just shut up and sought representation in Denmark and France's democratic systems? Was it a case where the Danish and French governments should have unilaterally handled their shedding of territory without organising a referendum? Or were there special conditions in those cases that made those referenda "good" which aren't present in your average 21st century secession referendum?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
The Saarland referendums were ludicrous little plays at France seizing economic control of Saar resources and productivity in a legal manner, which unsurprisingly failed by large margins each time. The Schleswig plebiscites were a quite interesting solution to determine the precise way to split up an area that was always intended to be split up, because Denmark's maximum claim on the area still left significant parts in German hands and German maximum claims were the same way. It also still involved ignoring a reasonable bit of public opinion because in the end the negotiations would be about creating a workable border for the terrain rather than precisely matching how people voted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Aviron posted:Did all British had bad opinions when they voted for brexit? Yes?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
For Saarland the referendum was a formality. The Saar had been cut off from Germany to prevent it from recovering too fast and then starting a revanchist WW3 while the rest of Europe was still licking its wounds, and it was obvious to everyone that they would return to Germany as soon as they were allowed to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:So let me spin off of this; what is your opinion on the Schleswig plebiscites and the Saarland 1935 and 1955 referenda? Were they a case where the populations should've just shut up and sought representation in Denmark and France's democratic systems? Was it a case where the Danish and French governments should have unilaterally handled their shedding of territory without organising a referendum? Or were there special conditions in those cases that made those referenda "good" which aren't present in your average 21st century secession referendum? I have no opinion on these referenda because I'm not familiar with them. I object to the premise though that being told that you can't have a referendum is the same as being told to shut up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Holding a public vote on a matter is a very basic expression of speech. Not allowing a vote is definitely somewhere on the continuum of "Shut up" to "Not listening; don't care."
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 01:12 |
|
|
Altivia posted:e: also lol that even bussing in people from other parts of Spain they could only get 350k people in their pro-unity demonstration today. Silent majority indeed. is that why my non-stop train from barcelona to madrid is currently full of people reading ABC and La Razón and with their Spanish football team jerseys tucked away in purses and in the overhead bins? Also, I'm curious if there's a Spanish equivalent of the US flag code because I'm seeing people using them as scarves, blankets, and other sundry, non-patriotic applications. I took some pictures of the demonstration while seeing the sites today, I'll try to post some ITT tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 16:54
|
|
